Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angel Mendoza, a painting contractor who also performed miscellaneous repair work, was completing punch-list items at a house owned and built by Hacienda Services, Inc. d/b/a Censeo Homes. The work included touching up paint, checking caulking, and cleaning a dormer window. Mendoza used his own ladder and equipment. He suffered severe and disabling injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, when he fell while working at the property.
Mendoza sued Censeo for negligence and premises liability, alleging among other things that the roof was loose and granular, that Censeo failed to provide a safe workplace and proper equipment, and that it failed to warn him of dangerous conditions. Censeo moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment under Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. After Censeo supplemented its motion with evidence that it owned the property when the accident occurred, the trial court rendered a final take-nothing summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Censeo conclusively established Chapter 95’s applicability: Mendoza sought damages for a negligence-based personal injury claim against the owner of commercially used real property; he was a contractor; and his claim arose from a condition or use of an improvement that he was repairing or renovating. The court concluded that touching up paint, correcting caulking, and cleaning the dormer window constituted repair or renovation because those activities were intended to restore the improvement to good condition.
Mendoza did not produce evidence raising a fact issue under Chapter 95’s statutory exception. Censeo identified the work to be completed but did not control the means, methods, equipment, sequence, or operative details of Mendoza’s work. Nor did the evidence show that Censeo required him to work without fall protection or otherwise fully controlled his activity in a way that heightened the danger. The court also held that evidence of Mendoza’s past practice of working without fall protection showed, at most, constructive knowledge—not actual knowledge that he was working without required protection on the day of the accident.
Key Takeaways
- Minor punch-list work such as paint touch-ups and corrective caulking can qualify as repairing or renovating an improvement under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 95.
- A property owner does not exercise the required control merely by identifying tasks or desired results; the control must extend to the contractor’s means, methods, or operative details.
- Chapter 95 requires actual knowledge of the injury-causing danger at the time of the accident, and evidence suggesting what the owner should have known is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Chapter 95 can cover contractor claims arising from relatively small corrective or finishing tasks, not only major construction or renovation projects. Once the statute applies, a contractor must produce evidence supporting both owner control and actual knowledge of the danger.
It also underscores the narrow reach of safety-based control theories. General safety expectations, policies, or awareness of a contractor’s past practices do not establish liability without evidence that the owner controlled the particular injury-producing activity and actually knew of the relevant danger.